Epstein Secrets

a witness against himself, within the meaning of the fifth amendment." (Det. Mot. 11 at 15) (quoting Boyd, 116 U.S. at 634-35). In In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum Dated Oct 29, 1992, the Second Circuit ruled that the Fifth Amendment does not protect the contents of private papers that are not business d

). 9. The New York Daily News Article On October 13, 2020, the New York Daily News published an article describing the February 29, 2016 meeting (the "Daily News Article" or the "Article").35 The Article stated, among other things, that defense attorneys representing victims of Epstein and Maxwell "urged" the USAO-S

entitled to rely upon the enforceability of a protective order against any third parties, including the Government." Id.; see also In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum Dated Apr. 19, 1991, 945 F.2d 1221, 1224-25 (2d Cir. 1991) ("The Martindell test [ ] does not transform a protective order into a grant of im

). 9. The New York Daily News Article On October 13, 2020, the New York Daily News published an article describing the February 29, 2016 meeting (the "Daily News Article" or the "Article").35 The Article stated, among other things, that defense attorneys representing victims of Epstein and Maxwell "urged" the USAO-S

entitled to rely upon the enforceability of a protective order against any third parties, including the Government." Id.; see also In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum Dated Apr. 19, 1991, 945 F.2d 1221, 1224-25 (2d Cir. 1991) ("The Martindell test [ ] does not transform a protective order into a grant of im

). 9. The New York Daily News Article On October 13, 2020, the New York Daily News published an article describing the February 29, 2016 meeting (the "Daily News Article" or the "Article").35 The Article stated, among other things, that defense attorneys representing victims of Epstein and Maxwell "urged" the USAO-S

s the proper remedy.39 Indeed, none of the Second Circuit cases applying Martindell contemplate suppression as a remedy. See, e.g., In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum Dated Apr. 19, 1991, 945 F.2d at 1224 (remanding for findings "on whether the protective order was improvidently granted or whether the gover

). 9. The New York Daily News Article On October 13, 2020, the New York Daily News published an article describing the February 29, 2016 meeting (the "Daily News Article" or the "Article") .36 The Article stated, among other things, that defense attorneys representing victims of Epstein and the defendant "urged" the

entitled to rely upon the enforceability of a protective order against any third parties, including the Government." Id.; see also In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum Dated Apr 19, 1991, 945 F.2d 1221, 1224-25 (2d Cir. 1991) ("The Martindell test [ ] does not transform a protective order into a grant of imm

). 9. The New York Daily News Article On October 13, 2020, the New York Daily News published an article describing the February 29, 2016 meeting (the "Daily News Article" or the "Article").35 The Article stated, among other things, that defense attorneys representing victims of Epstein and Maxwell "urged" the USAO-S